Posted by bistiza on 3/6/2013 12:03:00 PM (view original):I'm not sure who you think is asking the government to endorse a specific religion.

It goes beyond "enforcing the law" when someone with an anti-religion agenda decides to cause problems to remove some sort of symbol or artifact because it may have a significance to some religion and happens to be on government property.

Doing those kinds of things is clearly not what the law was intended to provide, and by all rights, the courts should laugh at these people and show them the door and maybe even fine them for wasting the court's time. The fact that they've found anyone to take their shenanigans seriously shows there is something incredibly wrong with the way some influential people interpret the constitution in America.

The courts are essentially allowing radical atheists to grandstand on these issues when they should be told to STFU because they are ridiculous.

-----

"It goes beyond "enforcing the law" when someone with an anti-religion agenda decides to cause problems to remove some sort of symbol or artifact because it may have a significance to some religion and happens to be on government property."

Having a nativity scene on public property is a government endorsement of Christianity.

"The courts are essentially allowing radical atheists to grandstand on these issues when they should be told to STFU because they are ridiculous"

The courts are just following the Constitution. YOu are free to put up whatever religious displays you want on your own property. You are free to go to church and celebrate your religion however you want. You are just not allowed to force everyone else to participate, which is what happens when you put a nativity scene up on public property.

Having a nativity scene on public property is a government endorsement of Christianity.

This is the problem: People want to act like allowing someone to set up a display constitutes an endorsement of the beliefs of the people who set it up.

Allowing someone to set up a sign or symbol doesn't mean you're endorsing anything - it just means you let them set it up. Otherwise you can't allow anyone to set up anything, ever, for fear someone may interpret it as a government endorsement for anything remotely related to what is going on.

Bottom line, the government isn't endorsing anything simply by allowing it to use public land to do something. As long as all groups are granted equal access to use the land, there should be no problem.

The courts are just following the Constitution.

No, they're not. That's the problem.

The constitution says the government shall not establish a religion - it does NOT say it will ban any and all religion from public property, and it was certainly never intended to imply any such thing (see my previous post about the founding fathers intentions).

Allowing someone to, say, put up a nativity scene does not establish any government religion, and should therefore cause no problem - unless you get some radical atheists with a ridiculous agenda trying to make an issue out of nothing because all they know how to do is cause trouble.

That's another thing - many religions are known to do a lot of great things in the world to help people, yet the atheists do nothing but cause problems. I've certainly never heard of a group of atheists getting together and doing charitable work on behalf of atheism, but they sure will waste time making sure they'll raise any remote possibility they might have a legal claim against religions.

You are just not allowed to force everyone else to participate, which is what happens when you put a nativity scene up on public property.

That doesn't force anyone to do anything. You don't have to change religions because you see a nativity display on public property. That idea is absolutely absurd.

Daylight savings time does suck. I wish we could do away with it and just stay on "summer" time all the time, because all it does is screw you out of daylight in the evening and put it in the morning when it's far less useful.

Posted by bistiza on 3/7/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):Daylight savings time does suck. I wish we could do away with it and just stay on "summer" time all the time, because all it does is screw you out of daylight in the evening and put it in the morning when it's far less useful.

??? We are on standard time now (at least in CA). Daylight savings time starts this weekend and goes through summer.

I'd like to once again point out that displays such as a nativity scene do not force anyone to do anything, no matter what property they are on.

Radical atheists would love to remove all remotely religious displays everywhere, but they also realize they can't get away with that. So they'll latch on anywhere they can, insisting such displays must be removed from public or government property because they know they can attempt to get someone to think the constitution actually supports that kind of move even though it was never intended to do any such thing.

These radical atheists are only out to cause trouble for other people. While many of the religious groups they oppose go out and do things that help other people, these atheists don't contribute anything positive to society and only seek to forward their own idiotic agendas.

So while a display such as a nativity scene doesn't force anyone to do anything, the radical atheists sure want to force everyone to do as they say and remove religious displays whenever they can.

I think the radical atheists need to get a life and find something else to do with their time, maybe something that would help others instead of causing problems.

Posted by bistiza on 3/8/2013 8:44:00 AM (view original):I'd like to once again point out that displays such as a nativity scene do not force anyone to do anything, no matter what property they are on.

Radical atheists would love to remove all remotely religious displays everywhere, but they also realize they can't get away with that. So they'll latch on anywhere they can, insisting such displays must be removed from public or government property because they know they can attempt to get someone to think the constitution actually supports that kind of move even though it was never intended to do any such thing.

These radical atheists are only out to cause trouble for other people. While many of the religious groups they oppose go out and do things that help other people, these atheists don't contribute anything positive to society and only seek to forward their own idiotic agendas.

So while a display such as a nativity scene doesn't force anyone to do anything, the radical atheists sure want to force everyone to do as they say and remove religious displays whenever they can.

I think the radical atheists need to get a life and find something else to do with their time, maybe something that would help others instead of causing problems.

I'm not sure that's the dumbest thing you've said, but it's easily the most vitriolic.

You think anything you disagree with is something dumb, so your opinion is completely meaningless.

People who make decisions on these matters in America need to stand up to these radical atheist fools and tell the to STFU and go get a life, because they do nothing but cause problems for other people.

If you think that's vitriolic, then you haven't read things other posters have said.

The problem is everyone is afraid the crazy atheists will sue and since some people in powerful positions will find in their favor, a lawsuit could be lost, and even if it's not it still costs a lot of money.

If the judges and others would have told these fools to STFU from the beginning, it would have set the precedent of having them leave everyone else alone with their insane agenda to eliminate religion everywhere they can.